Game for Low-Formal Education Farmers to Learn How to Improve Soil Quality

Abstract

Background. Many Thai farmers who live in national parks farmlands lack a formal education. They usually lack of knowledge on soil quality improvement and proper use of fertilizer. They illegally trespass in forest areas because of soil deterioration in their own limited expanses of farmland. Consequently, most of them are arrested, creating individual and family problems.

Aim. This “soil analysis and appropriate fertilizer use game” (SAAFU game) was designed for farmers having low-formal education to realize the soil analysis before planting and improve the appropriate chemical fertilizer usage.

Method.This quasi-experiential research used pre- and post-tests to evaluate the game session processes and learning of the players. The important steps were: 1) analysis of soil in the land box; 2) making decisions to buy fertilizer; 3) calculating, harvesting and selling products. Debriefing was also used to discuss and exchange their knowledge and experiences. Follow up process was also performed.

Results. The pre- and post-test score showed the better understanding of appropriate fertilizer use of the players. Soon after the gaming sessions, players went to their fields and collected 31 soil samples for soil nutrient analysis. Players also disseminated knowledge to their relatives and neighbors. As a result, non-players of Dongbak(22), Wangmon(9) and Chaimongkol(2) collected soil samples for soil nutrient analysis. Moreover, they grouping together to buy quicklime and fertilizers to get cheaper price.

Conclusion. This simple game can be used effectively with farmers having low-formal education. After the game and simulation, most of them realized how important of soil nutrients and soil analysis before planting and were able to teach their relatives and neighbours about soil collecting. This indicated the successful of this game.

Keywords

agricultural land management conservation area ecological model game and simulation SAAFU game soil analysis and appropriate fertilizer use game soil conservation and management

Introduction

In 1947, the Government of Thailand implemented a policy to reduce shifting cultivation and stop farmland expansion into forests and protected areas, especially in the highlands (Delang, 2002; Office of the Royal Development Projects Board, 2016). As a result, farmers have been confronting soil quality degradation problems due to continuous cassava farming in the same areas (Howeler, 1991) and almost of the farmers living in the highlands or protected areas usually lack formal education. Some private fertilizer companies support cassava stock and fertilizer for the farmers in many remote areas and bought back their outputs. If they get high productivities, they will gain more money. Therefore, farmers who want high productivity might follow suggestions from private fertilizer companies or the government officers by using some chemical fertilizers without any knowledge about the nutrients in fertilizer and soil. Moreover, many farmers in the highlands and protected areas have never performed soil analysis before cultivation even the Land and Development Department in every regional in Thailand offer free soil analysis fees (Land Development Department, 2016b). They also are not concerned about soil conservation in the process of their farming (Jones, 2002; Singburi Provincial Agricultural Extension Office, 2012 ).

Recently, several government agencies have been conducting training courses for farmers to teach them about soil analysis, suitable fertilizer usage and using computer programs for cropping (Land Development Department, 2016a, 2016c). The training method is managed by inviting speakers to give lectures to a large number of attendants at a certain of time. However, the participants usually have few chances to interact with trainers and they also do not understand some technical terms leading to a boring environment and reduced intake of information. Due to this, farmers continuously use the same fertilizers and encroach on conservation areas after only a few cycles of cropping because they believe that the land in the national park is more fertile, leading to conflicts between farmers and government officers. Recently, many parks enforced their strict laws by arresting farmers who had invaded the forest area. (Boonkird, Fernandes, & Nair, 1984; Funakawa, 2017).

Games can be a tool for learning difficult topics (Barry & Wandel, 2006; Williams, 2011). Games can create an enjoyable learning environment, create group participation and lead to decision-making in individuals and the group as a whole (Turocy & Stengel, 2002). It can also stimulate participant perceptions of experiences of learning knowledge and planning, as well as problem-solving (Dionnet et al., 2013; Kriz, 2003; Salvini, 2016). The participants can interact with other people in order to exchange their experiences and co-manage natural resources (Barreteau, Pages, & Perez, 2007). However, planning for games and simulations takes a lot of time. The game leader has to have leading skills, be able to lead the game in proper steps and have a good debriefing during the discussion (Crookall & Thorngate, 2009).

In Thailand, games and simulations have been used for collective learning in natural resource management in several local and remote areas with the assistance of a computer for calculating results, such as a role-playing game for razor clam management (Worrapimphong, 2003), a computer-assisted role-playing game to investigate interactions between cattle raising and above-ground biomass dynamics in highland agro-ecosystem (Dumrongrojwatthana, 2010), and a game and simulation to create a collaboration for the conservation of non-timber forest products in a community forest (Ruankaew et al., 2010).

Therefore, a simple role-playing game that used for learning about soil quality analysis and appropriate fertilizer use was created and named as “soil analysis and appropriate fertilizer use game” (SAAFU game). The game was used with farmers who have low-formal education and live in national parks in order to improve their understanding of appropriate chemical fertilizer use and increase their awareness of soil analysis before planting.

Study Site

Phu Koa-Phu Phan Kham National Park (16°55′48.76″N, 102°27′40.12″E), northeastern Thailand was selected as the study site. Three remote villages, namely Dongbak, Wangmon and Chaimongkol were included (Office of National Park, 2017). The recent population survey in 2015 was 552 households (Non Sang District, 2016). Most of them (97.04 %) grow cassava for sell as the major source of income. According to preliminary field surveys using questionnaires with 234 households (Yamane, 1973), it revealed that 65% of farmers had only graduated from primary school and less than 10% were interested in learning about the conservation of natural resources. Although the local Land Development Office proposed to conduct training sessions on soil conservation and management in these three villages, farmers refused to attend the meetings (even if they had been notified by the village headmen beforehand). So no training on soil nutrients, soil analysis and the proper use of soil fertilizer for their farmlands was ever be conducted. Due to this, farmers did not concern how important of the soil analysis before planting. Moreover, they continuously used the same fertilizers in a long repetition planting cassava that cause the depleted of soil nutrient in their farmland (Howeler, 1991; Kintché et al., 2017).

Materials and Methods

Game Purpose

This quasi-experiential research used pre- and post-tests to evaluate the game session processes and learning of the players. Based on the results from the system diagnosis (stakeholder analysis and in-depth individual farmer interviews on agricultural knowledge and soil conservation), the SAAFU game was created for three purposes: i) to facilitate knowledge and know-how on soil collecting for soil analysis process, ii) to teach low-formal education farmers to use the appropriate formula of fertilizer for cassava planting iii) to sensitize farmers on cooperative farming practices.

Game Materials

Game evaluation materials

Pre-test

Questions were about the knowledge of fertilizer formulas. The game leader read the questions one by one and the participants/players chose the answers (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Pre-test and post-test used in the game.

Post-test

It was the same questions as the pre-test but the following questions were added:

Which activities did you like and which ones impressed you the most?

What did you learn from today’s activity?

If there is any activity like this in the future, would you want to attend? Why?

Which activity you did not like?

What do you want the researcher to improve? How?

Other game materials

Different “colored beads” represented soil nutrients (N-P-K) and quicklime (Figure 2).

Different “colored foam boards”, size 4x4 cm, represented soil types and “paper clips” represented organic materials in soil (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Game materials.

3. “Land box” represented 1 rai (0.16 hectares) of farmland. It contained the initial soil nutrients which came from the soil analysis in reality. These were prepared for only 12 players, as mentioned in Table 1. If there were more than 12 players, the next player would use the soil type from the first player (Figure 3a).

4. “Soil analysis boxes” used for analyzing nutrients from soil in the land (Figure 3b).

5. “Individual recording sheets” A4-sized paper used for recording the decision-making (e.g., amount of fertilizer used, fertilizer formulas, investment costs and crop productivity) with an accompanying pad. Calculators and pens were provided as well (Figure 3c).

Table 1.

Initial Soil Nutrients and Types of Soil in the Land Box for Each Player.

Player	Nitrogen (N)(green bead)	Phosphorus (P)(yellow bead)	Potassium (K)(orange bead)	Organic matter(paper clip)	Soil pH(foam)
1	19	1	10	0	Red
2	22	1	12	0	Red
3	24	2	6	1	Red
4	24	0	5	1	Red
5	22	1	8	1	Red
6	22	5	27	1	yellow
7	52	2	68	2	yellow
8	31	0	14	1	Red
9	31	8	16	1	Red
10	29	1	5	0	Red
11	34	1	15	1	red
12	41	3	51	1	Blue

Figure 3.

Game materials; (a) “land box” including one unit of land, (b) soil analysis box, (c) game material bag (pre- and post-test, calculator and recording sheet).

6. “Public bulletin boards” is a big size boards that used for explaining the game materials and rules of the game. Another board displays an enlarged recording sheet used to explain to players how to fill in the data step-by-step (Figures 4 and 5).

7. “Cassava cards”, 1x1 inch cards adorned with a cassava photo, were put in a zip bag. Cassava needs nutrient N-P-K equal to 22-4-29 per rai (0.16 hectares), which showed on the recording sheet but without any explanation to the players. However, the players will learn this point during the game.

Figure 4.

The filling steps of recording sheet.

Figure 5.

The public board showing the game rules and game materials (a) and the recording sheet (b).

8. “Fertilizer bags” with diverse fertilizer formulas were prepared by using different colored beads and filled in individually labelled zip bags (Table 2, Figure 6a). The popular formulas (e.g., 15-15-15, 45-0-0) were prepared for more than the maximum number of players, but non-popular formulas were prepared for only half of the players.

9. “Fertilizer price boards” with A4 in size were prepared for each player to decide prices during the fertilizer buying step. Homemade fertilizer may also be suggested without any cost (Figure 6b).

Table 2.

Preparation for Different Formulas of Fertilizers Using Colored Beads, Paper Clips and Colored Foam Boards.

Fertilizer formula	Green bead (nitrogen: N)	Yellow bead (phosphorus: P)	Orange bead(potassium: K)	Fertilizer formula	Colored foam sheet
46-0-0	46	-	-	-	-
16-16-8	16	16	8	-	-
15-15-15	15	15	15	-	-
15-7-18	15	7	18	-	-
16-8-8	16	8	8	-	-
6-3-3	6	3	3	-	-
16-20-0	16	20	0	-	-
0-0-60	-	-	60	-	-
30-0-0	30	-	-	-	-
Organic fertilizer	-	-	-	2	Yellow (1/4sheet) *
Bio-fertilizer	9	3	5	6	Yellow (1/4sheet) *
Quicklime	10 Pink beads			1	Yellow

Note. *To indicate that adding organic fertilizer does not solve the pH of soil, farmers can add more chemical fertilizer

Figure 6.

Fertilizers with formula label (a) and price of different fertilizers (b).

Game Setting and Playing

Room setting and players

The SAAFU game was set for 12 to 16 players in order to get the most effective learning. Game assistants were trained to help players. Chairs and table were arranged in a U-shape or separated into small groups (Figure 7). Spaces were also provided for players to place their game materials. Space for the game leader and assistants were in the middle of the players in order to observe their activities or decisions. The SAAFU game was not design for players to compete each other, but they were also able to exchange their opinions with the other players. Coffee breaks were also provided.

Figure 7.

Game room setting (a) U-shape arrangement (b) small groups’ arrangement.

In this study, gaming and simulation field workshops were separately conducted in three villages: Dongbak, 13 persons; Wangmon, 11 persons; and Chaimongkol, 12 persons. We also invited soil specialists from the Land Development Region 5, Khonkaen province, to be observers and share their knowledge beyond the scope of the research project.

Game playing steps

Before starting the game, all players registered to get name badges containing player numbers and receive game materials.

Cassava planting for two rounds (represents two years in reality) was simulated (Table 3). The important steps were set up, including 1) analyzing of soil in the land box; 2) making decisions to buy fertilizer; 3) calculating, harvesting and selling products; and 4) discussing and exchanging opinions. Successful players should have results of 100% cassava productivity (1), which comes from the conditions of N-P-K being equal or more than 22-4-29 and having two units of organic matter (two clips).

Table 3.

Steps of Game Playing, Integration of Knowledge and Exchanging Knowledge.

Activities of game leader and team assistants	Activities of players	Integration of knowledge in games
- Game leader greeted the players and introduced team assistants - Explained the recording sheet and asked players to fill out their names and surnames - Explained the objectives of the workshop - Told players to answer the pre-test	- Fill out names and surnames - Fill the answer in the pre-test sheet - Opportunity to greet each other - Discussed the objectives of the workshop
Explained game materials:1. Green beads represent nitrogen (N)2. Yellow beads represent phosphorus (P)3. Orange beads represent potassium (K)	- Check the materials and follow the explanation	- Meaning of soil nutrients- Importance of soil nutrients in the growth of plants
- Explained the functions of organic matter in soil		- Usefulness of organic matter from humus, carcasses and dung- Organic matter can be added to soil using manure, bio-fertilizer or fresh manure.
- Explained the pH of soil (acidic soil, neutral soil, alkaline soil) represented by colored foam- Explained that pink beads represented quicklime to be used for adjusting acidic soil and basic soil can be adjusted using organic matter.		- Neutral pH soil is suitable for planting except for some specific plants that need a little lower and higher pH
- Explained the meaning of fertilizers and informed the players that the prices on the table were not real prices and farmers can use bio-fertilizer without any cost	- Follow the explanations- Exchange knowledge of fertilizers and check the correct prices	- Knowledge of homemade bio-fertilizers
- Told the players to check their farmlands (area 1 rai = 0.16 hectares)	- Count colored beads, paper clips and foam pads, place into the soil analysis box and record in the recording sheet	- Important of soil analysis and soil analysis process
- Distributed cassava cards to the players and announced that players may buy fertilizer throughout the planting period	- Decided to buy fertilizer and record the cost on recording sheet- Reconsider the use of fertilizer- Observe other players- Learned how to calculate the cost of investment- Exchanged experiences of using fertilizers, chemicals or bio-fertilizer
- Write examples for data recording and cost calculating on public board
- Sold fertilizers to the players and explained the meaning of their formulas again	- Picked up fertilizers and checked the numbers of beads	- Review knowledge of fertilizers
- Announced players to start planting	- Poured the analysis soil into the planting box, add fertilizer and start planting	- The appropriate uses of fertilizer for cassava
- Told players to check nutrients for cassava is 22-4-29 and organic matter is 2 units	- Checked the formula of nutrients in the recording paper
- Told players to calculate the nutrients after adding fertilizer and organic matter, and check the soil pH	- Calculated the amount of nutrients and the soil types
- Told players to check the amount of outcome product from the types of soil, nutrients and organic matter. If it has complete nutrients, organic matter and neutral pH, the players can sell the product at full price (1). If not, they will sell it at half price (0.5).	- Checked the product output and recorded on the recording sheet	- The importance of nutrients in soil for cassava productivity- Each nutrient is necessary for plants as the law of minimum
- Told players to sell products by counting their colored beads representing fertilizer and putting them into a transparent bag, and acknowledged them that the nutrients have been used up by the cassava and will no longer be in the soil	- Counted the colored beads, put them into a bag and sold products to the game leader	- Nutrients will be used up by plants causing a change of nutrients in the soil.- Rain will also wash out nutrients from soil, therefore, performing soil analysis before planting each crop is very necessary.
- Assessed the gains and losses of each player income- Discussed the appropriate use of fertilizer- Discussed the importance of getting good or not so good productivity- Explained that the imitative use of fertilizer will cost a lot of money and result is not so good productivity	- Presented their ideas and the outcome of the products (gain or loss)
- Told player to repeat the first round activities until harvesting and selling the products	- Repeated the process	- Review the appropriate use of fertilizers
- Hold a debriefing session and discuss the learning outcomes (individual & collective, benefit of cooperation)	- Group discussion and knowledge exchanged	- Review the use of fertilizer, benefits of working in groups, power of negotiation, marketing, problem-solving, and networking.
- The expert demonstrated how to collect soil samples for analysis	- Discussed the important of soil analysis
- Followed up process to pick up soil samples for analysis and informed the farmers for the results

The game leader integrated sporadic knowledge with each step, such as meaning and the important of soil nutrients for planting, cooperative farming by gather together to buy fertilizer or to exchange their knowledge and experiences.

Game Debriefing

Debriefing knowledge from the games played

Debriefing is the most important step when using games for learning (Crookall & Thorngate, 2009). The debriefing identified the most important issues from the game, such as how different decisions for buying fertilizer can cause different costs of farming. Of particular note was how imitating neighbors’ fertilizer use may not result in good crop yields because the initial soil types may be different from farm to farm. Therefore, soil analysis before planting is very important in order to choose the appropriate fertilizers for some areas and could potentially reduce costs and get better crop yields. In addition, the benefits of farming in groups was important to mention. Other factors that may influence crop yields other than soil fertility, such as drought and plant diseases, were reminded to players in order to avoid misunderstandings within the context of the game. Players also had the opportunity to discuss, ask questions, and share their opinions and experiences. The game leader then demonstrated good practices of soil collection.

Demonstration of soil collection

The game leader demonstrated methods of soil collection by following the manual from the Department of Soil Development (http://lddmapserver.ldd.go.th/soilanaly2/Soil

Collecting.pdf). The demonstration was done using candies spread over a big board, which represented farmland. Soil samples (candies) were then randomly collected throughout the field in a zigzag manner. The leader picked up 4-5 candies and explained certain precautions, e.g., do not collect soil under trees and do not smoke. Soils were then mixed and divided into four parts with one part brought to air dry then placed in a bag, labeled and took special note of the name and plant.

Post-test and satisfaction evaluation

After finishing the activities, players answered the post-test. They also indicated knowledge received from the gaming session and any impressions they had. All answers were then collected on a big board with a short explanation of what knowledge was obtained. Players then conducted a self-evaluation, rating each answer from 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum).

After the evaluation, the game leader provided all the correct answers in order for the players to know the right answers before closing the field workshop.

Results

Atmosphere

The results showed that the players enjoyed the game and simulation, and were able to follow the game steps (Figure 8, Tables 4 -8). They understood how to play the game and how to use game materials properly, especially with regards to beads representing soil nutrients. Some of them even demonstrated how to collect soil to other members in the group (Figure 9). They also exchanged their knowledge and experiences in farming. Some elderly players had writing problems, however the game assistants helped them to overcome these problems.

Figure 8.

Game atmosphere.

Table 4.

Decisions of Players in Dongbak Village Using Fertilizers in Two Rounds and Their Productivity Results.

Player	Formula of fertilizer		Productivity*
Player	Round 1	Round 2	Round 1	Round 2
1	15-15-15, OF**	46-0-0, 16-8-8, OF	0.5	1
2	15-15-15, OF	46-0-0, 16-8-8, OF	0.5	1
3	15-15-15, OF	46-0-0, 16-8-8, OF	0.5	1
4	15-15-15, OF	46-0-0, 6-3-3, QL, OF	0.5	1
5	15-15-15, OF	46-0-0, 16-8-8, OF	0.5	1
6	46-0-0, 15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-7-18, QL	0.5	1
7	46-0-0, 15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-15-15, 16-8-8, OF	0.5	1
8	46-0-0, 15-15-15, 16-20-0	46-0-0,5, 16-8-8, OF	0.5	1
9	46-0-0, 15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-15-15, QL	0.5	1
10	15-15-15	46-0-0, 16-8-8, OF	0.5	0.5 (K)**
11	15-15-15	15-15-15, OF	0.5	0.5 (N)*
12	15-15-15	OF	0.5	0.5 (N,K),*
13	15-15-15	46-0-0, 16-8-8	0.5	0.5(acidic soil)***

Note. half (0.5) or full (1), OF= organic fertilizer, QL= quicklime, * not enough nitrogen, ** not enough potassium, ***acidic soil.

Table 5.

Decisions of Players in Wangmon Village Using Fertilizers in Two Rounds and Their Productivity Results.

Player	Formula of fertilizer		Productivity*
Player	Round 1	Round 2	Round 1	Round 2
1	15-15-15	46-0-0, 16-16-8, OF, QL	0.5	1
2	15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-15-15, OF	0.5	1
3	15-15-15, 16-20-0	46-0-0, 16-8-8, QL, OF	0.5	1
4	15-15-15	46-0-0,5,6, QL, OF	0.5	1
5	OF	16-16-8, OF	0.5	1
6	15-15-15, 16-8-8	16-8-8, QL, OF	0.5	1
7	15-15-15	46-0-0,2, 16-8-8, QL, OF	0.5	1
8	15-15-15	46-0-0, 16-8-8, OF	0.5	1
9	15-15-15, OF	46-0-0,4, QL, OF	0.5	1
10	15-15-15	46-0-0, 16-16-8, OF	0.5	0.5 (N)*
11	15-15-15	16-16-8, OF	0.5	0.5 (N)*

Note. half (0.5) or full (1), OF= organic fertilizer, QL= quicklime, * not enough nitrogen.

Table 6.

Decisions of Players in Chaimongkol Village Using Fertilizers in Two Rounds and Their Productivity Results.

Player	Formula of fertilizer		Productivity
Player	Round 1	Round 2	Round 1	Round 2
1	15-15-15	15-7-18,5, OF, QL	0.5	1
2	46-0-0, QL	46-0-0, 15-15-15, QL, OF	0.5	1
3	15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-7-18, QL, OF	0.5	1
4	15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-7-18, QL, OF	0.5	1
5	15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-15-15, 15-7-18, QL, OF	0.5	1
6	15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-7-18, 16-16-8	0.5	1
7	15-15-15	46-0-0, OF	0.5	1
8	15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-7-18, QL, OF	0.5	1
9	15-15-15	46-0-0, 16-8-8, QL, OF	0.5	1
10	15-15-15	15-7-18, 16-8-8, QL, OF	0.5	1
11	15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-7-18, QL, OF	0.5	1
12	15-15-15	46-0-0, 15-7-18, OF	0.5	1

Note. half (0.5) or full (1), OF= organic fertilizer, QL= quicklime.

Table 7.

Scores of Pre-Tests and Post-Tests for the Three Villages.

	Village	Score of the test(Mean ± SD)
Pre-test	Dongbak	1.38	±	1.19
	Wangmon	1.64	±	1.43
	Chaimogkol	1.17	±	1.27
Post-test	Dongbak	7.00	±	0.00^**
	Wangmon	7.00	±	0.00^**
	Chaimogkol	7.00	±	0.00^**

Note. **Sig. p-value<0.01.

Table 8.

Individual Learning Scores Assessed by Players After the Gaming Session.

Individual learning aspect	Dongbak			Wangmon			Chaimogkol
Individual learning aspect	Mean	±	SD	Mean	±	SD	Mean	±	SD
Increased soil knowledge	5.00	±	0.00	5.00	±	0.00	4.83	±	0.37
Proper use of fertilizer	4.92	±	0.27	5.00	±	0.00	4.75	±	0.43
Importance of soil analysis	4.92	±	0.27	5.00	±	0.00	4.75	±	0.43
Income and expense calculation	4.69	±	0.61	4.91	±	0.29	4.58	±	0.49
Fun ways of learning	4.54	±	0.63	5.00	±	0.00	4.58	±	0.64

Figure 9.

Demonstration of soil sample collection for soil analysis.

Results From Gaming Sessions

The first round of the game showed that farmers used fertilizers as they were used to or simply followed their neighbors as shown in Tables 4 -6. The popular formula was shown to be 15-15-15(N-P-K) and organic fertilizer. As a result, they only received half of the cassava production (Tables 4 -6). This scenario confirmed the reality of fertilizer usage of the farmers.

After the first round of playing, the game leader explained to the players why they got fewer yields because they used non appropriate fertilizers for cassava in the field. Some farmers used too much nitrogen but lacked potassium (Table 4 -6). Other than that, the initial soil for each player/field was not the same. Using the same fertilizer as others was not appropriate for the cassava crop.

Farmer were feel free to apply usual formula fertilizers while planting cassava in the first round because if these game sessions did not let the farmer use fertilizers as usual, some farmer confused and had many questions (during the game session) that normally they use fertilizer in every crops and this game was not realistic on their farming processes. However, even they used usual formula fertilizers in the first round, but the productivity in their farms were not reach to the full productivities per 0.16 ha. After players understood how to use fertilizer from the first round, they played the second round with the same initial soil. After the second round of playing, the players from Dongbak, Wangmon and Chaimongkol villages were able to use the appropriate fertilizers 100%, 82% and 70%, respectively. They were also grouped to purchase quicklime in order to reduce the price.

Learning From Gaming Sessions

Individual learning

Results from the post-test showed that all of the players from the three villages had a better understanding of soil nutrients and fertilizer numbers when compared with the pre-test (Table 7) (pair t-test; p-value<0.01). The results of the self-evaluation in different learning aspects were observed in learning the proper use of fertilizer (Dongbak, Wangmon and Chaimogkol: 5.00 ± 0.00, 5.00 ± 0.00 and 4.83 ± 0.37, respectively), followed by learning the proper use of fertilizers and the importance of soil analysis (similar score; Dongbak, Wangmon and Chaimogkol: 4.92 ± 0.27, 5.00 ± 0.00 and 4.75 ± 0.43, respectively). Players also learned how to calculate incomes and expenses. If they used the wrong formula of fertilizer, the cost of agriculture may increase. Moreover, players learned about the method to make their own fertilizer (Table 8).

Shared learning

The players did not only gain soil analysis and proper use of fertilizer knowledge individually, but also lead to group discussions and shared learning as follows:

Participants exchanged knowledge on the length of cassava stock cutting. Many players recommended cutting around 15-30 cm. Some suggested soaking the stocks in fungicide before planting to prevent the loss of products.

Participants exchanged their experience about homemade fertilizer after the game.

One player had previously attended another training course about pineapple farming and shared his experience with other players on this new and interesting cash crop.

Participants exchanged prices of fertilizers and places for buying.

This game gave a chance for the players to create a network with other people who are experts in other topics and they can consult with experts from the Regional Land Development Office.

Disseminating knowledge within the villages

This game was very successful and achieved its goals since, a few days after the game, 31 players out of 36 players (86.11%) and several non-players collected 33 soil samples to be sent for analysis. This meant that the farmers increase their awareness of soil analysis before planting after playing this game.

Satisfaction of the activities

Based on the evaluation, all players want to attend the next game. They suggested researchers create a game about learning together along with other good practices for planting cassava.

Discussion

In general, knowledge about soil management and fertilizer is performed as a day-long meeting consisting mainly of lectures by specialists. The lecture topics are mainly theoretical and use a lot of technical terms. Farmers who have low education do not usually understand, get bored and do not pay any attention. The learning is very limited in this type of meeting. Moreover, the Government usually lacks officers and budgets to conduct the sessions in remote areas. As a result, farmers usually improperly manage their farmlands.

A simple game for soil analysis has now been created. This game emphasizes practicing and sharing experiences among players. This is another way to facilitate knowledge to low education farmers. The game led farmers to gradually learn step by step, starting from knowing soil types and soil nutrients. After using different colored beads to analyze the soil nutrients by themselves, the farmers had a better understanding of the different soil nutrients in different fields and understood the meaning of nutrient numbers (N-P-K) shown on fertilizer bags. They also learned from the game leader that cassava yield is proportional to the amount of the most limited nutrient. Therefore, understanding the plant requirements is another important lesson. This learning process stimulated farmers to realize the importance of soil analysis and the appropriate use of fertilizers, finally allowing them to learn the important of soil analysis before planting and expand their knowledge to their relatives and neighbors by collecting 64 soil samples to be analyzed. This is the highest level of learning and will lead to sustainable resources management (Castella, Kam, Quang, Verburg, & Hoanh, 2007; Dionnet, Kuper, Hammani, & Garin, 2008; Gurung et al., 2008, 2009). However, if some researcher wanted this game to use in their study site they may adapt playing in the first round with “blank” (without fertilizers filling in soil) in case of the players in those areas do not confuse about the game in their mindset.

Another benefit of the SAAFU game was the improvement of social network and adaptive management capacity of farmers. Strong networking will happen if people can share experiences and help each other regularly (Kilduff & Tsai, 2005). In the game, they had opportunities to share their agricultural experiences together, so, in the future, they could also potentially solve their problems together. They also grew to know some of the experts that the researchers had invited to the game for future contacts. For the follow up period, farmers gathered in groups to buy appropriate fertilizers for their own farms from the results of the soil analysis. They no longer bought fertilizer by imitation as in the past. This result of established farming networks will continue to enhance farmers and encourage them to adapt themselves in farming and in life-long learning.

Conclusion and Perspectives

The results showed that after using SAAFU game in three villages located in Phu Kao-Phu Phan Kham National Park, northeastern Thailand, with 36 farmers who have low-formal education, farmers grew to understand the game and materials with an enjoyable atmosphere. Most of them could use the appropriate fertilizers by the second round of playing. After the game, 31 players out of 36 (86.11%) collected soil samples for analysis by the Land Development Region 5, Khon Kaen. They were also able to transfer the knowledge for soil collecting to other farmers who did not attend the game which resulted in 33 more soil samples for testing. This indicated that the farmers realize the important of soil analysis before farming and taught others which is not happened before in the villages.

If some other scenarios can be introduced to these farmers using some other plants for growing such as rice, sugarcane and vegetables. These kinds of plants require different nutrients from cassava. From this, farmers will be able to choose fertilizers freely by consulting the knowledge gained from the former game and also by using starting soil from the latest harvesting season. Steps for growing, nitrogen fixing, or leguminous plants between cropping seasons could also be introduced. Unpredictable situations such as drought, reductions in rice production, plant diseases, can also be simulated in order to prepare farmers to adapt themselves for uncertain futures. Moreover, scenarios regarding national park laws is also interesting. Farmers will learn laws for seizing back land, as well as laws on fines and punishments. Subsequently, they will realize the outcomes of encroaching on national parks and the consequences faced by their families and themselves.

Finally, the pilot study was conducted in National Park area, then scaling out the game to other areas with similar problems is a very interesting prospect and could potentially lead to the increased capacity of farmers on a much wider scale.

Limitations

It seemed that the SAAFU game was very successful but it still has some limitations, especially regarding the number of participants, which can only permit 12-16 persons per round in order to get the most effective learning experience. The small size of participants (n=36) of this pilot study may not reflex the learning of the whole population in the area. If more players are in the game, the number of game assistants needs to be increased. Moreover, in the practical session, elderly players usually needed some assistances. Another problem found at the beginning of the study was the word “game”, as used by the research team. It directly influenced some of the farmers as a number of them decided not to attend the field workshop because they had a perception that the game was for fun and for children only. Therefore, in the future at the invitation stage, some other terms such as “activity” or “exercise” should be used other than game.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation for their permission to conduct our research (TS 0907.4/876).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is partially funded by the National Research Council of Thailand (2558RPCS52033/158387) and the 90th year Chulalongkorn University, Rachadaphisek, Sompoch Scholarship (GCUGR1125572035D No.27).

Author Biographies

Sutheera Pruksakorn is a PhD candidate at the Interdisciplinary Program of Environmental Science, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. She obtained BSc in Biological Science from Faculty of Science, Chiangmai University, Thailand. Her current research is focused on using game and simulation to create awareness about farming in protected areas.

Contact: sutheera.pruksakorn@outlook.com

Somboon Kiratiprayoon is a lecturer of the School of Science and Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand. He is interested in reserving natural resources and plant Community analysis.

Contact: sxk4539@yahoo.com

Somkit Uttaranakorn is a superintendent of Phu Kao - Phu Phan Kham National park, National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Contact: Phu.kao@hotmail.com

Orathai Sukreeyapongse is a director of the Office of science for land development, Land Development department, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok, Thailand.

Contact: otsk@yahoo.com

Pongchai Dumrongrojwatthana is a lecturer of the department of Biology, faculty of science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. He is interested in using game and simulation to enhance learning of natural resources conservation.

Contact: pongchai.d@chula.ac.th

References

Barreteau

Pages

C. L.

Perez

(2007). Simulation and gaming in natural resource management. Simulation & Gaming, 38(2), 181-184.

Barry

Wandel

(2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 282-292.

Boonkird

S. A.

Fernandes

E. C. M.

Nair

P. K. R.

(1984). Forest villages: An agroforestry approach to rehabilitating forest land degraded by shifting cultivation in Thailand. Agroforestry Systems, 2(2), 87-102.

Castella

J. C.

Kam

S. P.

Quang

D. D.

Verburg

P. H.

Hoanh

C. T.

(2007). Combing top-down and bottom-up modelling approaches of land use/cover change to support public policies: Application to sustainable management of natural resources in Northern Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 24(3), 531-545.

Crookall

Thorngate

(2009). Acting, knowing, learning, simulating, gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 40(1), 8-26.

Delang

C. O.

(2002). Deforestation in Northern Thailand: The result of Hmong farming practices or Thai development strategies? Society and Natural Resources, 15(6), 483-501. doi:10.1080/08941920290069137

Dionnet

Daniell

K. A.

Imache

von Korff

Bouarfa

Garin

… Rougier

J.-E.

(2013). Improving participatory processes through collective simulation: Use of a community of practice. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 36. doi:10.5751/ES-05244-180136

Dionnet

Kuper

Hammani

Garin

(2008). Combining role-playing games and policy simulation exercises: An experience with Moroccan smallholder farmers. Simulation & Gaming, 39(4), 498-514.

Dumrongrojwatthana

(2010). Companion modelling to investigate the interaction between cattle raising and above-ground biomass dynamics in highland agro-ecosystem, Nan province, Northern Thailand (Doctoral dissertation). Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

10.

Funakawa

(2017). Shifting cultivation in Northern Thailand with special reference to the function of the fallow phase. In Funakawa

(Ed.), Soils, ecosystem processes, and agricultural development (pp. 229-251). Tokyo, Japan: Springer.

11.

Gurung

T. R.

Le Page

Nima

Choney

Landy

Trébuil

(2009). Companion modelling to enhance spring water collection and sharing in East Bhutan. Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF PN25). RNR Research Centre, Ministry of Agriculture, Wengkhar, Bhutan. Retrieved from http://agritrop.cirad.fr/553533/1/document_553533.pdf

12.

Gurung

T. R.

Promburom

Naivinit

Thongnoi

Barnaud

Trébuil

(2008, 9-14 November). Effects of companion modeling on water management: Comparative analysis across five sites in Bhutan and Thailand. The Second CPWF International Forum on Water and Food (IFWF2), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

13.

Howeler

R. H.

(1991). Long-term effect of cassava cultivation on soil productivity. Field Crops Research, 26(1), 1-18. doi:10.1016/0378-4290(91)90053-X

14.

Jones

(2002). A framework for understanding on-farm environmental degradation and constraints to the adoption of soil conservation measures: Case studies from highland Tanzania and Thailand. World Development, 30(9), 1607-1620. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00056-6

15.

Kilduff

Tsai

(2005). Social networks and organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 207-209.

16.

Kintché

Hauser

Mahungu

N. M.

Ndonda

Lukombo

Nhamo

… Vanlauwe

(2017). Cassava yield loss in farmer fields was mainly caused by low soil fertility and suboptimal management practices in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo. European Journal of Agronomy, 89, 107-123. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2017.06.011

17.

Kriz

W. C.

(2003). Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through gaming simulation design. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 495-511. doi:10.1177/1046878103258201

18.

Land Development Department. (2016a). Program for plot fertilizer use. Retrieved from http://www.ldd.go.th/www/lek_web/web.jsp?id=17863

19.

Land Development Department. (2016b). Soil analysis service. Retrieved from http://www.ldd.go.th/web_Soilanaly/Index.html

20.

Land Development Department. (2016c). Soil doctor volunteer. Retrieved from http://r07.ldd.go.th/nan01/prj-nan/mordin/mordin.htm

21.

Non Sang District. (2016). Demographic information. Department of Non Sang District. Nongbua Lamphu Province, Thailand.

22.

Office of National Park. (2017). Phu Kao - Phu Phan Kham [National Park]. Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Thailand. Retrieved from http://park.dnp.go.th/visitor/nationparkshow.php?PTA_CODE=1050

23.

Office of the Royal Development Projects Board. (2016). Highland agricultural development (Royal project). Retrieved from http://www.rdpb.go.th/Projects

24.

Ruankaew

Le Page

Dumrongrojwatthana

Barnaud

Gajaseni

van Paassen

Trébuil

(2010). Companion modelling for integrated renewable resource management: A new collaborative approach to create common values for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 17(1), 15-23.

25.

Salvini

(2016). REDD+and Climate Smart Agriculture in landscapes. From national design to local implementation. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen University.

26.

Singburi Provincial Agricultural Extension Office. (2012). Use of appropriate fertilizer to reduce the cost of rice production. Singburi Province, Thailand: Academic publications of Department of Agricultural Extension, Thailand.

27.

Turocy

T. L.

Stengel

B. V.

(2002). Game theory. In Encyclopedia of Information Systems (Vol. 2, pp. 403-420). San Diego, USA: Elsevier Science.

28.

Williams

B. K.

(2011). Adaptive management of natural resources—Framework and issues. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1346-1353. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.041

29.

Worrapimphong

(2003). Companion modelling, multi-agent systems, roleplaying game, Razor Clam, Don Hoi Lord (Master. Science (Zoology)). Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

30.

Yamane

(1973). Statistics: An introductory analysis. New York, NY: Harper & Row.